Share this

The official White House portraits of George W. and Laura Bush will be unveiled at the White House on Thursday. President Barack Obama, who will host the ceremony, ran in 2008 pledging a move away from Bush administration policies. Yet after three-and-a-half years in office the economy remains sluggish. And on Guantanamo and other issues the Obama administration has largely continued Bush administration policies.

As spokesman for both Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Reid, like them I was a fierce and vocal critic of the Bush administration who had plenty of tough things to say about his tenure. However, today is not one of those days. He deserves the honor and respect (and no it is not looking better in hindsight.)

George W. Bush will be remembered for responding forcibly to radical Islam and advocating entitlement modernization - the latter with only occasional success. The Medicare Part D is the Rodney Dangerfield of entitlement reform, getting little credit for its cost savings and customer satisfaction; however, our national experience with its successes will inform future market-based reforms. The Bush proposal on Social Security reform - imperfect and incomplete - will be viewed with new respect in coming years.

Bush administration policies on the international stage have proven easier to burlesque than to thoughtfully replace, and mistakes in the Iraq occupation will have a different appearance in the long view of history. Over time, George W. Bush’s refusal to criticize his successor, and his perseverance in the face of fierce partisan criticism, will project his public spirit in a most favorable light.

As president, George W. Bush had lower deficits, lower unemployment figures, and a better record of bipartisan accomplishment with Congress. The Obama team may like to keep blaming Bush as a re-election strategy, but that will continue to get harder to do, especially as Bush's classy post-presidency is improving his standing with the American public.

For all of the talk about "cleaning up the mess" the Bush administration left behind, President Obama has adopted nearly all of his strategies on national defense and homeland security. Osama bin Laden was killed due to planning put in place by the CIA and the military during the Bush administration. With each passing day and the lack of a terrorist attack on our homeland, the 43rd president of the United States will be judged more kindly by history.

Compare him to today's Republicans, and he's a liberal wuss. Racially progressive (instead of playing upon fears). A believer in humane immigration policy (as opposed to the Obama ICE, with its quotas for raids that divide families and kick taxpayers out of the country). Even on foreign policy and war, second-term W is far less interventionist than today's standard-issue Republicans. (He didn't attack Iran, after all). He bailed out the banks and the car companies. Given Romney's views, one wonders if W isn't secretly for Obama.

Ed EspinozaWestern states Democratic consultant; former DNC official :

Nearly everything President Obama has to struggle with is due to a Bush-era policy. The economy, the debt, the wars. Let's take a look at the Bush-era record:

Massive tax cut for the rich while waging two unfunded wars.

Rejection of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Huge kick-back to the drug companies in Medicare Part-D without any government bulk-buying discount.

Out of control banking and mortgage industry that led to Wall Street's collapse in 2008 and subsequently bursting the housing bubble.

Carving back government services so that even FEMA was unable to fulfill its objectives.

By contrast, the economy under Obama has seen 26 consecutive months of job growth - the longest period of growth in a generation. Women have equal pay laws. All Americans will have access to health insurance. Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.

Cognitive bias prevents us from seeing presidents as calculating politicians. We think that they’re saviors who will bring about pots of gold at the end of rainbows. But they’re not. President’s make strategic calculations everyday to maintain the support of their constituencies. The common good is secondary, which is why most grand proposals end up dying on the floors of the House or Senate. Or get watered down a shadow of their original self. This is particularly true for president’s serving during hard economic times. A president simply doesn’t have any control over gas prices, unemployment, or consumer confidence.

Not to mention, presidents exacerbate this effect because they fail to manage the public’s expectations. They make tons of promises, but there are too many competing interests keeping them from changing the political order. Not to mention, it is not in their best interest to change the order because it is the very system in which they draw benefit. President Obama has been particularly poor at managing expectations. One of the reasons why the public is so divided on his performance is that he’s made promises that don’t yield results. Some examples of this include: the Dream Act, the jobs bill, and his failed promise to veto the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act: a law that allows for indefinite military detentions.

All the modern president’s finished their administrations with approval ratings below 50 percent, except for Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and most interestingly, Clinton. It doesn’t really matter who is president, we afford them high approval for the first 100 days of their administration – the honeymoon – then we start complaining until we’ve shaved their rating down to the nub. President Obama’s trend currently mirrors Nixon’s, but George W. Bush suffered the steepest decline of approval of any President since Truman. Despite this, it’s no surprise that W. looks better today than he did in 2007. Ten years from now, we’ll all be saying the same good things about Obama.

Jeremy MayerAssociate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University :

Given his approval ratings when he left office, and the effects of his disastrous foreign and economic policies, it is hardly surprising that Bush is looking better. He almost had nowhere to go but up. As with all failed presidencies, the passage of time tends to ease the anger and disappointment of the people and the elites. This is what happened with Hoover and with Carter.

But Bush's failures are so recent, and their impact still lingering, that his public image improvement so far is only marginal. More Americans still blame him for the economic collapse that happened in the last of his eight years in office. The Iraq War may be over, but we are still more than a trillion dollars in debt because we went to war while cutting taxes for the first time in U.S. history. And the limbless, eyeless, cognitively shattered, and needlessly dead of that unnecessary war remind all of us of the cost of electing an intellectually limited, deeply ideological, and remarkably incurious person to the presidency.

There are areas of continuity between Obama and Bush, but on a far greater number of issues, the change is evident. Guantanamo remains open, but this is a result of Congress thwarting the president, rather than a policy shift by Obama.

One key to assessing the state of Bush's legacy is how he is treated at this summer's Republican National Convention. If even Republicans do not want him in prime time, then we'll know that his public image remains quite negative.

George Bush is definitely not looking better in hindsight. In hindsight, President Obama probably should have tackled economic reform of the banking and financial sectors first.

But I'm also sympathetic to what was inherited and the overwhelming chore of where to begin. So it's no surprise the "women and children first" reflex kicked in and health care reform took center stage. When every sector of the economy looks like the Titanic as it did when Obama took office it's a wonder we've made this much progress in three years.

Sure, President Bush looks better in hindsight to the extent that the further we get from his presidency, the blurrier he gets... and the more we forget all the awful things he did in office.

But unfortunately, for the thousands of Americans and others who died needlessly in Afghanistan and Iraq, for the millions of Americans who became poor or homeless as a direct result of his policies, for those hurt by the fact that he prioritized tax breaks for the rich over basic government services for the middle class, his legacy remains all-too painfully clear.

President Bush's finest hour was standing in the World Trade Center 9/11 rubble and his lowest was marching to a war of choice in Iraq; somewhere in the middle lies his legacy. How history assesses the former commander-in-chief will depend on how he treats those who fought his war.

Decades from now I believe Iraq will be the defining Bush-Cheney policy choice because of its relative uniqueness and scope. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 yet 9/11 was invoked to expend American blood and treasure in Iraq - thousands dead, wounded, and haunted plus trillions of dollars spent on military action and veterans benefits. What if the day after 9/11 we were told to "start sacrificing" not "go shopping?" What if we had stayed focused on Afghanistan and waited longer for sanctions or international pressure to work in Iraq? What if we used only air power and NATO not our ground forces in Iraq? What if we had the strategic planning, necessary equipment and body armor to save more lives and injure fewer troops? What if opponents had a less compliant or complicit media who challenged the presumptions rather than beating the war drums?

Long after the portaits are unveiled, the war dead are buried, and the selective histories are written, Americans will long debate these questions and apply our answers to the challenges at hand. Short term, we must support the warriors, veterans and military families who went sacrificing not shopping after 9/11. These heroes deserve the dedicated efforts of all national leaders, including and especially their former commander in chief. How he speaks out and acts out for the veterans of his war of choice will tell us much about the character and legacy of former President George W Bush.

President Bush’s historical standing has been aided tremendously by President Obama, although not on purpose. The total failure of President Obama’s economic agenda including the failed stimulus and wasteful crony capitalism projects like Solyndra might make even Jimmy Carter’s record look good by comparison.

The most astounding feat of political gymnastics I have seen in a long time is the president’s flip from railing against some of President Bush’s most important anti-terrorism policies, to embracing and continuing them. The requirement of the President Obama’s personal approval to take out people on a “kill list” is especially rich.

Dewey ClaytonProfessor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

I would say that in hindsight, President George W. Bush looks better in some areas than in others.

President Obama's actions with respect to counterterrorism have not differed drastically from President Bush. However, his approach to foreign policy has been drastically different from the Bush administration. Obama has chosen to approach foreign policy and diplomacy as a multilateral endeavor. Gone are the Bush days of unilateralism. We have gained a considerable amount of respect with other nations around the world because of this approach. Domestically, after three-and-a-half years, the economy remains sluggish. However, this country had a financial collapse in 2008, and the fact that we are now in a recovery (albeit a modest one) is great news and shows that the country is heading in the right direction. Any student of macroeconomics 101 will tell you that the nation's economy constantly meanders from peaks and troughs. We are currently coming out of a recession (some would say a depression) and it takes time to recover from. We are on the path to recovery.

When Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton. One of the first things his administration did was to push for tax cuts on the wealthy primarily. Shortly thereafter, the Iraq War began. Overall, federal tax revenue went down as a result of the Bush tax cuts, in my opinion. And the cost of the Iraq War has been estimated in the trillions of dollars. Add to that the financial collapse of 2008 which was the result of numerous factors including the deregulation of the banking industry. Lastly, President Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices during his two terms as POTUS. Those two, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito, were part of the 5-4 majority in Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010), which held that the First Amendment prohibits the restrictions of independent expenditures by corporations and unions. The influx of money that we have seen so far in the 2012 elections is mindboggling and, in my opinion, is making our democratic process less democratic. Allowing this much money in the political process favors the wealthy over the poor and drowns out the voices of the average person. That changes a democracy into a plutocracy.

I do not believe George W. Bush's own parents would think his presidency looks better in hindsight, and as time goes by, the impact of his horrible decisions and actions just loom larger.

The economy does remain sluggish since W boarded Marine One for his journey back to Texas. And there is good reason for that: the end of the financial world as we know it was knocking at the door on his watch. In 2008 the United States and the globe was on the precipice of an economic disaster that would have, in the era of world economic ties, made the Great Depression seem quaint. The conservatives who shout that regulations are too strict and are discouraging job creation seem to forget that a mere four years ago Wall Street was looting the mortgages and retirement accounts of the very voters they are trying to woo by pinning every economic woe on President Obama.

In this week after the Memorial Day weekend, it does not take a great deal of hindsight to look back at President Bush's turn as Goose, complete with flight suit, and his landing on a carrier deck to declare "mission accomplished." (I do miss Bush during his Village People phases: pilot, cowboy). Someone forgot to tell the writing staff (since 43's presidency always seemed like a bad sitcom, but one where brave men and women died for a lie) that the war was no where near an end, and that it would be his successor, Barack "Captain Appeaser" Obama, that would actually bring the troops home from Iraq. The writers also blended the Osama bin Laden episode nicely as well, leaving it to President Obama to give the order to rid the world of the devil himself, while President Bush gave his rich kid shrug and said that he didn't think about bin Laden and didn't really care if he was alive or dead. That is an epic leap from your bullhorn speech among the rubble of the World Trade Center, sir.

So, to recap: economic catastrophe that will affect generations, unnecessary war and treating veterans like toy soldiers, expanding the size and scope of government and adding tons of debt to our balance sheet, all while destroying the good will shown in the international community after 9/11? That is what you get from a prep school legacy. And since we have have another prep school candidate for the Republicans in 2012 (Mitt Romney yearbook prediction: wants to be a barber), we should stick with the guy raised by a working mom who is the actual embodiment of what we teach kids is the American Dream.

The Bush legacy: a foreign policy alternating between reckless adventurism and neglect; behaviors that sullied our nation’s reputation; a deficit fueled by tax cuts and out of control spending on an unfunded prescription drug plan and two failed wars; and overseeing a near collapse of our financial institutions – better in hindsight?

When Barack Obama took the oath of office he was not handed a magic wand. Instead he was handed the shovel that his predecessor had been using to dig us into a deep hole. Three-and-one-half years later, we’re not out yet, but the folks complaining the loudest are those who have obstructed the president’s every effort to get us back on safe ground.

It's not so much that George W. Bush looks better in hindsight. Rather, the failure to see greater improvement under Barack Obama reminds us that we cannot solve our national problems simply by changing our elected officials.

We have a political system that makes it very difficult to adopt solutions for a slow economy, budget deficits, and other serious challenges. Until we undertake major reforms of the system, we will continue to be disappointed with our political leaders.

No, in hindsight Bush is still a hinder. He was twitchy, impulsive, simplistic and trigger-happy, and completely unsuited intellectually, temperamentally and experientially to be president of the United States. And he left the country and the world in shambles. I hope he enjoys the portrait unveiling, it'll be the highlight of his presidency.

I'm not sure George W. Bush could possibly look any worse in hindsight because he was so horrible when he was president. The economy is still sluggish today in very, very, very large part due to his failed economic policies and because he plunged us into a costly Iraq war that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush-Cheney administration remains the worst in my lifetime and Bush may be the nation's worst president of all time, save for Richard Nixon. But even on that score, I put Bush one rung lower because he needlessly sent American men and women to die in combat in Iraq.

If George W. Bush is looking better to you right now, you need your eyes checked and your head examined.

No. He took the nation to war duplicitously. He waged two wars off of the budgetary books. Where Obama has gone off-course on some of the same issues that caused criticism of Bush, e.g. signing statements, there remains a matter of degree. I believe it will take a minor miracle for Bush 43’s reputation in the White House to be improved significantly.

Yes. I think in hindsight Americans should revise their opinion of former President George W. Bush in a sharply upwards direction. First of all, the economy boomed during most of Bush's presidency with strong economic growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. While his presidency did end during a recession and the financial crisis, the fact remains that for most of his presidency the Bush tax cuts worked to grow the economy in a really dramatic way.

Second, in foreign policy and with respect to the War on Terrorism, President Obama has essentially continued almost all the Bush policies that he criticized so harshly and so hypocritically on the campaign trail. Guantanamo Bay remains open, leading terrorists are going to be tried by military commissions, and we are using more predator drones to attack terrorists than ever before. U.S. troops have now been out of Iraq for five months and that country is more stable and far more respecting of human rights than it was under Saddam Hussein. Bush's call for democracy in the Arab world has been answered with an Arab Spring which President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have managed skillfully so far. While there are huge risks ahead, especially in Egypt, the transition that had to take place in that country is at least so far proceeding democratically.

Obama has also embraced Bush's tax policy, and the fiscal cliff debate is premised on the idea that Obama's policies would devastate a struggling economy. In many ways, Obama is preparing to run for re-election on being more Bush than Bush, with more targeted killing and drone killings than Bush. On civil liberties, people on both the libertarian right and on the progressive left has expressed dismay that Obama has also out-Bushed Bush in many ways. Even on the issues that Obama claims to be concerned about, things like income inequality, he has offered no results and few policy ideas to change the trajectory from Bush.

While Bush 43 cannot escape his legacy of leaving office with the country embroiled in two wars and heading toward recession, he has been almost a model citizen since out of office. George W. Bush has made a practice of rarely giving interviews as an ex-president, except for promoting his book "Decision Points" which was published in November 2010, and talking more recently about training with wounded vets. This has served him well.

Also, his prescient call for democracy in the Middle East in November 2003 now seems to have merit especially in Tunisia, and we will have to see about Egypt and Libya and maybe eventually Syria. But Bush did say it first.

Burma, too, seems to be working out, after a series of sanctions imposed on that country by the Bush administration and Laura Bush, herself, spoke out in favor of imprisoned pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Now, as we know, Daw Suu Kyi is not only out of confinement but is a Member of Parliament. In fact, she is on her first overseas trip right now, telling migrant workers in Thailand that she will help to improve the Burmese economy so that they can come home.

Finally, Laura Bush has been a not-so-secret weapon in helping to improve Bush 43’s image. One of the first people Aung San Suu Kyi called upon her release from house arrest was Laura Bush, thanking her for all her support. And the former First Lady is still active in pet projects, such as, improving girls’ education in Afghanistan. She is in demand to receive awards and to give commencement speeches. She is doing George W. Bush a world of good.

It’s not that Bush is looking better in hindsight. It’s partially that Bush left Obama some major problems that took a while to resolve and that they’re both owned by the same special interests, and Obama has no understanding of economics and no vision of how to make the lives of ordinary Americans better, just like Bush.

The rhetoric is different, but the actions are far more similar than anyone would have expected. Bush would probably be aghast at the rate of deportations under Obama’s years, and he would be amused at how much his successor has reinforced conservative themes, from extending the Hyde Amendment to health care reform (prohibiting abortions) to using terms like “uncertainty,” “cutting needless regulations,” and “belt tightening” to describe what has caused the economic problems of the average family and what will make things better. The difference is that Bush governed by ill-conceived conviction, whereas Obama governs by ill-conceived polling.

Having said that, Bush is still viewed by the majority as a failed president because of the wars and the economy. His poll numbers may be slightly higher than when he left office, but he could not win a national election again (even or especially against Obama).

There is no question that President Barack Obama has continued President George W. Bush Administration policies. Whether it was in Afghan war escalations and troop surges or Libya and Yemen invasions, President Obama shows the same aggressive proclivities that President George W. Bush exhibited at the height of his so-called war on terrorism. Keep in mind that it was Obama's administration that started killing American citizens in drone strikes with insufficient evidence (see Yemen) and the Obama administration that classified more documents than any president in history.

This does not mean that President George W. Bush looks better in hindsight, it merely reflects the pressures put upon a president - primarily by the Pentagon and its private patrons in the defense industry - to remain forever at war.

We are entering a new era where even the most dovish of candidates will be encumbered by a defense industry (and its political pals in the Pentagon) driven by shareholder incentive to increase profits through the pursuit of more, not less, weaponization.

Until someone puts some reasonable fetters on this industry's influence in Washington - whether in Congress, in the Executive Branch, or among the think tanks that advise them both - we will continue to witness the blurring of Bush-Obama foreign policy approaches.

Of course George W. Bush is looking better in hindsight, though conservatives make a mistake in helping former Bush administration types remake the image of a president who seriously damaged the conservative brand and paved the way for the Democratic takeover of Congress and the election of Barack Obama.

Conversely, Jimmy Carter looked worse in hindsight as Reagan showed us what an American president actually should be.

What's amazing is how bad a President Barack Obama already appears to be. Even near history will judge him to have been among the worst of U.S. presidents.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.